Transcatheter aortic valve implantation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Clinical expert opinion and consensus statement for Asia

Telemedical management in patients waiting for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the ResKriVer-TAVI study design

Aims

The majority of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) planned for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are elective outpatients. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the time between the heart team's decision and TAVI increased due to limited healthcare resources. We therefore implemented telemedical approaches to identify AS patients at risk for clinical deterioration during the waiting time. The purpose of the prospective, randomized, controlled ResKriVer-TAVI study (DRKS00027842) is to investigate whether a digital concept of telemedical interventional management (TIM) in AS patients waiting for TAVI improves the clinical outcomes. In the present article, we report the study protocol of the ResKriVer-TAVI trial.

Methods

ResKriVer-TAVI will enroll AS patients planned for elective TAVI. Randomization to the TIM group or standard care will be made on the day of the heart team's decision. TIM will include a daily assessment of weight, blood pressure, a 2-channel electrocardiogram, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation, and a self-rated health status until admission for TAVI. TIM will allow optimization of medical therapy or an earlier admission for TAVI if needed. Standard care will not include any additional support for patients with AS. All patients of the TIM group will receive a rule-based TIM including standard operating procedures when a patient is crossing prespecified values of a vital sign.

Results

The primary endpoint consists of days lost due to cardiovascular hospitalization and death of any cause within 180 days after the heart team's decision. Major secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality within 365 days, the number of telemedical interventions, and adherence to TIM. Follow-up visits will be conducted at admission for TAVI as well as 6 and 12 months after the heart team's decision.

Conclusions

ResKriVer-TAVI will be the first randomized, controlled trial investigating a telemedical approach before TAVI in patients with AS. We hypothesize that primary and secondary endpoints of AS patients with TIM will be superior to standard care. The study will serve to establish TIM in the clinical routine and to increase the resilience of TAVI centers in situations with limited healthcare resources.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide analysis of the first COVID-19 wave in the Netherlands

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on healthcare systems. Most transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) centres have adopted different triage systems and procedural strategies to serve highest-risk patients first and to minimise the burden on hospital logistics and personnel. We therefore assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient selection, type of anaesthesia and outcomes after TAVI.

Methods

We used data from the Netherlands Heart Registration to examine all patients who underwent TAVI between March 2020 and July 2020 (COVID cohort), and between March 2019 and July 2019 (pre-COVID cohort). We compared patient characteristics, procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes.

Results

We examined 2131 patients who underwent TAVI (1020 patients in COVID cohort, 1111 patients in pre-COVID cohort). EuroSCORE II was comparable between cohorts (COVID 4.5 ± 4.0 vs pre-COVID 4.6 ± 4.2, p = 0.356). The number of TAVI procedures under general anaesthesia was lower in the COVID cohort (35.2% vs 46.5%, p < 0.001). Incidences of stroke (COVID 2.7% vs pre-COVID 1.7%, p = 0.134), major vascular complications (2.3% vs 3.4%, p = 0.170) and permanent pacemaker implantation (10.0% vs 9.4%, p = 0.634) did not differ between cohorts. Thirty-day and 150-day mortality were comparable (2.8% vs 2.2%, p = 0.359 and 5.2% vs 5.2%, p = 0.993, respectively).

Conclusions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, patient characteristics and outcomes after TAVI were not different than before the pandemic. This highlights the fact that TAVI procedures can be safely performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, without an increased risk of complications or mortality.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01704-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Electrophysiology and Interventional Cardiology Procedure Volumes During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has imposed an unprecedented health care crisis across the globe. Health care efforts across the world have been diverted to tackling the pandemic since early 2020. Hospitals and health care systems have undertaken major restructuring in an effort to deliver health care to an increasing number of patients affected by COVID-19. Although great focus has been placed on treating those individuals suffering from COVID-19, clinicians must simultaneously balance caring for patients who are not actively infected. In anticipation of an exponential increase in COVID-19 cases, health care systems developed strategies to channel available resources to meet the rapidly rising demands of COVID-19. This change was noticed significantly in the field of invasive cardiology as well. Many cardiac catheterization and electrophysiology (EP) laboratories canceled elective procedures to limit the burden on hospital resources and preserve personal protective equipment (PPE). Major societies published guidance statements delineating patient selection for procedures during the exponential phase of the pandemic growth. Patient care was triaged and those waiting for elective procedures were managed with expectant care or noninvasive approaches to preserve hospital resources and personnel. In the current article, we review the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its response to the volume of interventional cardiology (IC) and EP procedures across the world.

Impact of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease Pandemic on the Performance of a Cardiovascular Department in a Non-epidemic Center in Beijing, China

Background: Knowledge of the impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on the performance of a cardiovascular department in a medical referral hub center from a non-epidemic area of China is limited.

Method: The data on the total number of non-emergency medical cares (including the number of out-patient clinic attendances, the number of patients who were hospitalized in non-intensive care wards, and patients who underwent elective cardiac intervention procedures) and emergency medical cares [including the number of emergency department (ED attendances) and chest pain center (CPC attendances), as well as the number of patients who were hospitalized in coronary care unit (CCU) and the number of patients who underwent emergency cardiac intervention procedures] before and during the pandemic (time before the pandemic: 20th January 2019 to 31st March 2019 and time during the pandemic: 20th January 2020 to 31st March 2020) in the Department of Cardiology and Macrovascular Disease, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University were collected and compared.

Results: Both the non-emergency medical and emergency medical cares were affected by the pandemic. The total number of out-patient clinic attendance decreased by 44.8% and the total number of patients who were hospitalized in non-intensive care wards decreased by 56.4%. Pearson correlation analysis showed that the number of out-patient clinic attendance per day was not associated with the number of new confirmed COVID-19 cases and the cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in Beijing (r = −0.080, p = 0.506 and r = −0.071, p = 0.552, respectively). The total number of patients who underwent non-emergency cardiac intervention procedures decreased during the pandemic, although there were no statistically significant differences except for patent foramen ovale (PFO) occlusion (1.7 ± 2.9 vs. 8.3 ± 2.3, p = 0.035). As for the emergency medical cares, the ED attendances decreased by 22.4%, the total number of CPC attendances increased by 10.3%, and the number of patients who were hospitalized in CCU increased by 8.9%: these differences were not statistically significant. During the pandemic, the proportion of hospitalized patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) significantly increased (19.0 vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001; 28.8 vs. 18.0%, p < 0.001, respectively); also, the number of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) increased by 10.3%. There was no significant difference between patients before and during the pandemic regarding the age, gender, baseline and discharge medication therapy, as well as length of stay and in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions: Our preliminary results demonstrate that both the non-emergency and emergency medical cares were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic even in a referral medical center with low cross-infection risk. The number of the out-patient clinic attendances not associated with the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases could be due to different factors, such as the local government contamination measures. The proportion of hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction increased in our center during the pandemic since other hospitals stopped performing primary angioplasty. A hub-and-spoke model could be effective in limiting the collateral damage for patients affected by cardiovascular diseases when the medical system is stressed by disasters, such as COVID-19 pandemic.